The problem of evil

[William]

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. eta:{SOURCE}

[tam]

Peace to you, William,

The public were the adversary, not Satan. - William

viewtopic.php?p=1090647#p1090647

You are quote-mining. That is not portraying the whole truth of what I stated.

A quote-mine usually distorts what someone is saying, and I don't think I did that. Perhaps I misunderstood you though. You can clear that possible misunderstanding up by answering the following question:

Are you agreeing that Satan is indeed the Adversary of Job, in the account of Job?

All accusations [about me or anyone else] come from Satan - which is to say - are mirrored finger-pointing. - William

viewtopic.php?p=1091105#p1091105

Again with the quote-mining.

How does that quote distort the meaning of what you said?

Are you saying now that all accusations (about you or anyone else) do not come from Satan and are not mirrored finger-pointing?

What I wrote in full was what I thought and why I thought it.

William: I am pointing out the irony re your accusations about me. All accusations [about me or anyone else] come from Satan - which is to say - are mirrored finger-pointing. My "Accuser" [in this case "Tam"] is regarded by me, as voicing accusation = "as coming from Satan" since he is the God-Father of accusation.

To further explain, this rolls off of your statement that Satan is OUR accuser, OUR adversary, and he seeks to destroy us (mankind, and in particular, anyone who belongs to Christ, to God). He is an enemy and the irony I mentioned re that.

Your quote-mining plus finger-pointing appears to be something of a double standard as it accuses Satan of being the accuser of "anyone who belongs to Christ" but when "anyone who belongs to Christ" accuses others, that is somehow 'different'.

I cannot make sense of this explanation, William. How does making the statement that Satan is our Adversary, our accuser (and that he seeks to make us 'curse God and die')... mean that no one who belongs to Christ can accuse another person of anything (even if true) without it being a double standard?

Accusing is accusing, no matter who does it. They take after the ol' devil 'imself,...

Are you saying that anyone who accuses others is taking after the devil/Satan?

Humans did not accuse Job of being a fairweather friend. The Adversary is the one who made that accusation.

I don;t know what you are referrencing here,

The very account under discussion:

"Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”


and,

“Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life. 5 But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

but Job is definately under judgment from humans in his company as the story tells it.

Job answers his accusers;

Yes, they are convinced that he must have done something to bring this calamity on him. (There is a definite lesson in that for mankind, one that the Pharisees and others did not learn, because when someone fell, they considered that person to be unclean and/or a sinner under judgment.) But the humans in the story are not the ones who brought the accusation against Job to begin with - they are reacting after the fact. The Adversary is the one who brought that accusation against Job - the Adversary is the one we were speaking about and he did his level best to destroy Job, to get him to 'curse God and die'. He is an enemy.

"Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." 1Peter 5:8

The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. Matt 13:38, 39

He (the devil) was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44

But for the sake of transparency, you said:

That you hear an encouraging voice you call "Christ"... ()... tells me that you have dealt with your dark side more effectively and made friends with it. - William

So If I go searching for where I wrote that, will I find yet another instance of Tam-pering in the form of quote-mining?

No, you will find an instance of tam not using Joey in an argument. Something I asked you not to do as well.

[Do you write your posts as channeled from this "Christ Jaheshua"? If so, any accusing tone you use against me, bedevils said voice.]

See, you say things like this and it indicates that I was not quote-mining you at all. That I did not misconstrue your meaning. Because here you are stating that an accusing tone is somehow 'bedeviling'.

And the answer to your question is no, I do not write my posts as 'channeled' from my Lord. He is alive and can speak, Himself, even if many do not listen. But if I learn something from Him, and share that thing, I give Him credit. Same (I think) as most conscientious students would give credit to the teacher who taught them, rather than claiming the teacher's wisdom as their own. To do otherwise would be theft, deceit.

I don't care if we continue or not, William.

My opinion on that is I think the real "Christ Jaheshua" would never say that to me Tam.

Well, tam is the one who said it to you. It does not matter to me if we discontinue or continue. Though my preference is more along the lines to discontinue, since it always seems to go the same way between us. You accuse me of accusing you, even if I am simply disagreeing with the things you have said and pointing out that you have provided no evidence for those things (or pointing out that your claims are contradicted by the evidence, or even by Christ).

I think a false accuser would.

Or perhaps just someone who doesn't wish to have the same old argument all over again.

[oldbadger]

Peace to you,

And peace to you, Tam.

So I was questioning how you could think that rape is a disgusting action, but not an evil (or bad) action.

In Nature rape occurs among many different species.... I see rape committed in our garden almost everyday in the early summer, but we don't do anything to the culprit drake that I'm thinking of. Evil cannot exist in the animal world, and so that leaves us people to think about.
We lock up rapists (here) for life sentences, rape is one of the most serious crimes.
But I don't think that literal evil exists.
I don't even think that the abominations quoted in the laws of Moses are literal evil, nor do I believe in a literal hell (nor heaven) after death.

But where then is your love for your spouse? (speaking in general, not asking you specifically) A spouse you vowed to be faithful to, to care for? Where would your love for him/her be? Where would your integrity and your trustworthiness be?

(I'm not judging, just saying... adultery can and does cause pain, and it is unfaithfulness)

Some marriages are polyamorous, Tam. It's adulterous in some cultures but accepted by the people involved.
Some marriages are polygamous, a couple who came to our wedding were polygamous and loved each other dearly.
Some marriages break up through all kinds of reasons, and those who swore that they would live and die for each other do the most dreadful things to each other.
Some couples cheat each other in so many different ways, but it is not literal evil.

How about this? We know a woman who trashes her husband for all manner of 'things' to all her colleagues, close friends, and yet she lives comfortably with him, goes with him to social functions, holds him close to her dearly, appears so loving......... and all the people around just stare silently at him, and he wonders what's happening......true......... dreadful but not evil.

The pain it causes in the person who has been betrayed is not different.

But truth can be painful......... a person who believes that they are deeply loved, but who then discovers adultery in the spouse, painful but true..... true that they need a better love, a more honest love.
Some people live in pain forever because they didn't like their parent's ways...... what can I say? But evil? I don't believe evil exists.

If the law that is love were adhered to, nobody could die of starvation or neglect. Love passes someone in need and offers to help them. Love feeds the poor (if possible).

There is no law that is love, love finds its home where it will, just as hatred can.

I wouldn't think of an adulterer as I would a robber or a killer..... never.

I'm married twice. My late wife died a long time ago, and I've been with my second wife for thirty years, 17 of them married with her. We are very close.
Do you have a spouse?

[JoeyKnothead]

Accusations come from Satan?

That is itself an accusation.

The problem of evil is too many folks think they know what a god considers "evil", and are willing to enact their own evil in that god's name.

We're humans. We're nigh all guilty of some form of not doing good. There's no need to invoke the gods for our misdoings.

The problem of evil is a problem of humans, not gods.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

And peace to you, Tam.

Thank you.

So I was questioning how you could think that rape is a disgusting action, but not an evil (or bad) action.

In Nature rape occurs among many different species.... I see rape committed in our garden almost everyday in the early summer, but we don't do anything to the culprit drake that I'm thinking of. Evil cannot exist in the animal world, and so that leaves us people to think about.
We lock up rapists (here) for life sentences, rape is one of the most serious crimes.
But I don't think that literal evil exists.

This might come down a difference in definition.

Rape is not a good act.

Rape is not a neutral act.

Rape is a bad act. <- if we can agree on that, then we might be on the same page, except perhaps for a difference in definition of the word evil. I could use bad and evil as synonyms (wicked as well).

Here is a link to how the word is used in the bible, so that you might get a sense of what is being said in certain passages:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

But where then is your love for your spouse? (speaking in general, not asking you specifically) A spouse you vowed to be faithful to, to care for? Where would your love for him/her be? Where would your integrity and your trustworthiness be?

(I'm not judging, just saying... adultery can and does cause pain, and it is unfaithfulness)

Some marriages are polyamorous, Tam. It's adulterous in some cultures but accepted by the people involved.
Some marriages are polygamous, a couple who came to our wedding were polygamous and loved each other dearly.

Indeed, but that is why I specifically mentioned 'a spouse you vowed to faithful to'. Adultery is being unfaithful to someone; breaking faith with them. I know at least one polyamorous marriage couple, but even they can be unfaithful to one another by their own rules. But different kinds of marriages is kind of sidestepping the point that adultery is unfaithfulness and can and does cause pain. Where is the love for your spouse in cheating on him/her/them?

Some marriages break up through all kinds of reasons, and those who swore that they would live and die for each other do the most dreadful things to each other.
Some couples cheat each other in so many different ways, but it is not literal evil.

How about this? We know a woman who trashes her husband for all manner of 'things' to all her colleagues, close friends, and yet she lives comfortably with him, goes with him to social functions, holds him close to her dearly, appears so loving......... and all the people around just stare silently at him, and he wonders what's happening......true......... dreadful but not evil.

I'm not saying anything for or against the wife in your scenario (we can indeed treat one another badly... and this could come from our own pain; it is hard to love your neighbor as yourself if you do not first love yourself), but I just have a question based on your description:

What is dreadful, if not bad?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dreadful

The pain it causes in the person who has been betrayed is not different.

But truth can be painful......... a person who believes that they are deeply loved, but who then discovers adultery in the spouse, painful but true..... true that they need a better love, a more honest love.

That doesn't excuse the actions of the person who did the cheating, does it?

The person being cheated upon may certainly need a better and more honest love. But that doesn't man the actions of the person who did the cheating came from love. Right?

Some people live in pain forever because they didn't like their parent's ways...... what can I say? But evil? I don't believe evil exists.

What is your definition of evil?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

If the law that is love were adhered to, nobody could die of starvation or neglect. Love passes someone in need and offers to help them. Love feeds the poor (if possible).

There is no law that is love, love finds its home where it will, just as hatred can.

I wouldn't think of an adulterer as I would a robber or a killer..... never.

It is not about comparing one bad act to another bad act; it is just an example of a bad act. Well, it was an example (among others) of something that does not come from love. You had asked about how I felt with the commandments: the commandments hang off love, because that (love) is the actual law that is from God, from the beginning. Some people need that law broken down into smaller bits (and some people may need it broken down even further because they do not know how to govern their own actions... aka... how to live free). My point was to show that the law from God is love, the commandments hang off that law: because love does not bear false witness, love does not commit murder, love does not commit adultery.

I listed some things above that love does not do, but here are some things that love DOES do: show mercy, forgive, give to the one in need.

Love also covers over a multitude of sins; and against love there is no law. So that Christ could show mercy to the woman brought to him to be stoned FOR adultery without violating the law. He surpassed that (written) law with LOVE, the law that is from God, from the beginning, against which there is no law.

I'm married twice. My late wife died a long time ago, and I've been with my second wife for thirty years, 17 of them married with her. We are very close.
Do you have a spouse?

I am sorry for you loss in your first wife, and glad to hear that you and your second wife are very close.

And yes, I have been married for 24 years. We have two sons (23 and 20).


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?

It appears that evil is wrought through actions against prohibitive law and law is wrought through social necessity and social necessity is wrought through the dictates of the environment in relation to personal and group survival.

Adding to that mix, the idea we exist within a creation, rules are required and enforcing the enactment of said rules appears to have required the element of an authority figurehead higher than those making the laws in order for said laws to have a chance of integrating with the overall tribe and becoming standards which - when followed - proved overall to be beneficial.

As it appears, the argument of The Problem is specific to the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.

All powerful.
All well meaning and kindly.
All knowing.

The idea of GOD as presented by Bible-Jesus shifts the individuals awareness away from a scary distant entity - largely working through the medium of hierarchy and law - to the more approachable Father-figure of which an individual could connect and directly integrate with, bypassing the hierarchal authorities.

To have evidence of an all powerful GOD, the requirement is that the laws of nature have to be seen to be able to be over-ridden while also being heavily scrutinized for any sign of human skullduggery going on to create an illusion that natures laws have been broken.

To have the evidence of an all-benevolent GOD, the requirement is to show that those laws of nature are over-ridden and no harm happens to anyone due to natural causes.

To have the evidence of an all knowing GOD requires..?
_____________________________________________


Since there is no such evidence, it is unlikely that such a GOD exists outside of religious [hierarchical] belief systems and therefore it can be concluded that there is - in reality - no "Problem of Evil."

Therefore, the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil", is one of conjecture [opinion].
In realty, the problem doesn't actually exist.

[TRANSPONDER]

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?

It appears that evil is wrought through actions against prohibitive law and law is wrought through social necessity and social necessity is wrought through the dictates of the environment in relation to personal and group survival.

Adding to that mix, the idea we exist within a creation, rules are required and enforcing the enactment of said rules appears to have required the element of an authority figurehead higher than those making the laws in order for said laws to have a chance of integrating with the overall tribe and becoming standards which - when followed - proved overall to be beneficial.

As it appears, the argument of The Problem is specific to the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.

All powerful.
All well meaning and kindly.
All knowing.

The idea of GOD as presented by Bible-Jesus shifts the individuals awareness away from a scary distant entity - largely working through the medium of hierarchy and law - to the more approachable Father-figure of which an individual could connect and directly integrate with, bypassing the hierarchal authorities.

To have evidence of an all powerful GOD, the requirement is that the laws of nature have to be seen to be able to be over-ridden while also being heavily scrutinized for any sign of human skullduggery going on to create an illusion that natures laws have been broken.

To have the evidence of an all-benevolent GOD, the requirement is to show that those laws of nature are over-ridden and no harm happens to anyone due to natural causes.

To have the evidence of an all knowing GOD requires..?
_____________________________________________


Since there is no such evidence, it is unlikely that such a GOD exists outside of religious [hierarchical] belief systems and therefore it can be concluded that there is - in reality - no "Problem of Evil."

Therefore, the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil", is one of conjecture [opinion].
In realty, the problem doesn't actually exist.

The problem of evil is the name for a real and iconic philosophical ethical problem. I recall the Greeks had a version called the 'Euthyphro dilemma'. Essentially, either god doesn't care about evil in which case he can't be good, or he can't do anything about it, so why call it a god?

This is a real thing in the religion debate and the lack of either moral fibre or ability is cited as one of the reasons for deconversion as often as reading the Bible and realising what a crock it is.

it is no secret that atheists see Biblegod as not at all good. The conclusion (based in fact on the unreliability of the Bible) is not that God exists but is evil, but Biblegod does not exist, if any god does.

Bible -Jesus does indeed introduce a more personable character (though i don't find him particularly likeable) but that doesn't really alter the nasty god that hath done all manner of wicked things and doesn't seem to have changed much. Jesus is a red herring in the problem of Evil

I think you sum up nicely the problem of finding evidence of an intervening god - supernatural intervention even after checking for skullduggery as you say. And as you say, AFTER the problem of evil has been seen as valid, the evidence suggest that there is no god, not that there is a god and it is not good. Remember, there are two god -claims here; Biblegod and an Intelligent Creator god, of no particular religion. One considers scripture as a guide to what it (supposedly) does and the other just considers what it does in the natural world. In both cases - in all cases where an intelligent creator - god is supposed to interact with the world we live in, the problem of evil is real and valid, whatever you say.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #126]

in all cases where an intelligent creator - god is supposed to interact with the world we live in, the problem of evil is real and valid, whatever you say.

Your statement of opinion is noted. Do you have anything which shows us that natural events are indeed, and therefore should be, considered evil?

And as you say, AFTER the problem of evil has been seen as valid, the evidence suggest that there is no god, not that there is a god and it is not good.

I did not say this. I do not see the so- named "problem of evil" as having been validated.

The problem of evil is the name for a real and iconic philosophical ethical problem.

Ethics are opinions based upon no supporting evidence that evil objectively exists. Therefore, "the problem of evil" is a mind-problem. A problem of the thoughts, superimposed/projected upon nature.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #126]

in all cases where an intelligent creator - god is supposed to interact with the world we live in, the problem of evil is real and valid, whatever you say.

Your statement of opinion is noted. Do you have anything which shows us that natural events are indeed, and therefore should be, considered evil?

And as you say, AFTER the problem of evil has been seen as valid, the evidence suggest that there is no god, not that there is a god and it is not good.

I did not say this. I do not see the so- named "problem of evil" as having been validated.

The problem of evil is the name for a real and iconic philosophical ethical problem.

Ethics are opinions based upon no supporting evidence that evil objectively exists. Therefore, "the problem of evil" is a mind-problem. A problem of the thoughts, superimposed/projected upon nature.

That depends doesn't it on whether they are natural or done by a god. If they are natural 'evil' is relative. A volcano or earthquake may be very evil for the people in it but a scientist may say it is excellent as part of the formation of earth's structure and a good chance to study it. No, he will empathise (unlike those believers whose Faith has made them psychotic ("They are all sinners, so they deserve it").

No, or Yes, evil does not exist as a universal Law but as a subjective opinion of humans. Now, if a god is involved then the doing of it is evil, or not preventing it is evil. Of course, a god may not be involved, and then the question is 'which god?' or "What god?"

And it looked to me as though you did indeed say that the evidence suggested there is no god:

"To have the evidence of an all-benevolent GOD, the requirement is to show that those laws of nature are over-ridden and no harm happens to anyone due to natural causes.

To have the evidence of an all knowing GOD requires..?
_____________________________________________


Since there is no such evidence, it is unlikely that such a GOD exists outside of religious [hierarchical] belief systems and therefore it can be concluded that there is - in reality - no "Problem of Evil.""

Underlining mine. Was that yours or not?

Not cue: ( I do hope) "I did not use those exact words". I have seen it a couple of times, but I think you are better than that, so you won't do it.

[oldbadger]

Peace to you,

And Peace to you, Tam.
Thank you for your post.... lots to think about.

Rape is a bad act. <- if we can agree on that, then we might be on the same page, except perhaps for a difference in definition of the word evil. I could use bad and evil as synonyms (wicked as well).

Here is a link to how the word is used in the bible, so that you might get a sense of what is being said in certain passages:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Rape (in the bible) is a crime that can attract the death penalty. In some circumstances even the victim can be executed if she does not cry out for help and resist.
But in other cases where a virgin is raped, then the perpetrator might be ordered to marry her and keep her as wife.

But today in the West, rape is a very serious criminal offence, but does not use the definition 'evil', even though the emblem above our Judges' seats read 'Honi soit qui mali pense'.
Hmmmm.... I need to think more about this word, but I don't believe in a tangible devil nor evil, only the bad actions of humans.

Indeed, but that is why I specifically mentioned 'a spouse you vowed to faithful to'. Adultery is being unfaithful to someone; breaking faith with them. I know at least one polyamorous marriage couple, but even they can be unfaithful to one another by their own rules. But different kinds of marriages is kind of sidestepping the point that adultery is unfaithfulness and can and does cause pain. Where is the love for your spouse in cheating on him/her/them?

Today, adultery is an entirely different action to that of several thousand years ago. Today it's a broken vow and promise, can be so painful, but if discovered then all the victims (adultery-bigamy?)are blessed with truth. They've discovered something that can change their lives for the better.

But when the Israelites were out in the wastelands, adultery was SIN, and sin could only lead to sickness, weakness, broken cohesion, leading to failure. Sin led on to sickness, in the case of adultery it could spread illness and illness could destroy the whole nation.

What is dreadful, if not bad?

For me, dreadful is anything that terrifies me, threatens me or my loves..... dreadful can be a lawful thing but I might dread it just the same.

That doesn't excuse the actions of the person who did the cheating, does it?

The person being cheated upon may certainly need a better and more honest love. But that doesn't man the actions of the person who did the cheating came from love. Right?

Question..... a person commits adultery, a situation presented itself and temptation won. Adultery.
What do you think should happen to the offender?

What is your definition of evil?

Because I don't believe in a real tangible 'evil', whenever I hear/see the word I think of SIN, the sin of breaking the laws of MOses, any of the 613. The 613 were all written for the formation of a strong, healthy, secure, safe, successful and cohesive nation of people and any breach of those laws at all was SIN. SIN led to sickness, weakness, insecurity, danger, failure.... Sin leads to sickness.

That's what I think of on sight of the word 'Evil'

It is not about comparing one bad act to another bad act; it is just an example of a bad act. Well, it was an example (among others) of something that does not come from love. You had asked about how I felt with the commandments: the commandments hang off love, because that (love) is the actual law that is from God, from the beginning. Some people need that law broken down into smaller bits (and some people may need it broken down even further because they do not know how to govern their own actions... aka... how to live free). My point was to show that the law from God is love, the commandments hang off that law: because love does not bear false witness, love does not commit murder, love does not commit adultery.

I listed some things above that love does not do, but here are some things that love DOES do: show mercy, forgive, give to the one in need.

Love also covers over a multitude of sins; and against love there is no law. So that Christ could show mercy to the woman brought to him to be stoned FOR adultery without violating the law. He surpassed that (written) law with LOVE, the law that is from God, from the beginning, against which there is no law.

Yes.... The 613 could be looked upon as 'Love', if love is the survival and success of a whole people. In which case love can be dreadful because it has to do some very serious things in order to keep security, safety, health, cohesion etc in tact.

Jesus stopped the stoning of that woman because it was illegal for any Jews to execute anybody at all....only the Prefect of Governor of a province could order that. But I like the way in which he used the hypocrisy of those people as his lever.

Christian love would have failed those Israelites back then...... their kind of love was terrifying at times.

I am sorry for you loss in your first wife, and glad to hear that you and your second wife are very close.

And yes, I have been married for 24 years. We have two sons (23 and 20).

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Thank you, Tammy, and Peace be to you.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #128]



What I said specifically had to do with a GOD-type. If the GOD-type mentioned in the OP is not evident in nature, then the problem of evil is a false/illusionary perception superimposed upon nature.



Which is to say - benevolence is in the eye of the beholder...

Stuff happens. One can embrace it as part of the experience without resorting to pointing at something and calling it 'evil' just because it made one cry.